John Titor's "Worldlines"

E

Eleutherios

Temporal Novice
John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

I've noticed that a lot of apologists use the "Worldlines" to excuse away the predictions that Titor made which didn't happen (for example, the civil war).

It seems as if the premise is that if you time-travel, you'll probably go to a worldline that's slightly different in some way (usually different enough to explain any holes in predictions, but not so different that Titor claimed all his facts with the highest level of confidence, even the stuff that outright didn't happen). So the questions are...

1) Why does the variation between worldlines happen? Why does time-travel also consist of going to another dimension? It doesn't make any sense... time-travel would be useless if you couldn't get back to exactly where you came from (which leads me to #2)

2) If you're going to come out in a different worldline, why send anyone back? If you send Titor back to get a computer, he's probably not going to come back to the same worldline... leaving the worldline that sent Titor to never get the computer they wanted.

3) How different are the worldlines? It seems like a popular excuse is "Well, on THIS worldline, the civil war must be delayed by a couple months." It also seems as if worldlines are just a device to excuse away the incorrect predictions that Titor made. Does it follow the "Universal Plothole Coverup Law" or is there some method to it?

So, if someone could answer these, that would be great.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Actually I have heard that you DO return to your own worldline. Someone explained to me why but I forgot. Something to do with matter I think.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Well, the time travel machine would work mechanically the same way front and back. There's no reason why you wouldn't hop another worldline in return if you could hop a worldline getting there.

If the reason was a spoof of the "Conservation of Matter" and said something like "If Titor existed in one worldline, he has to go back to that worldline, because his matter came from there and the amount of matter in each worldline would be consistent", then he couldn't bring back a computer. That would slightly reduce the mass of this worldline and increase the mass in his.

So I'm pretty sure that it would switch a worldline.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

It is not the same front and back. Because by going to the past, he is going somewhere he does not belong too but he still can go to it. But when he returns he will need to return where he left. It is kind of complicated to explain, and it is complicated persay. The important thing is that there should be a way to return where you left. Also, when we achive time traveling(which I think we already have but it ain't public). But when we do, publicly, we will certainly clear all this doubts and know a lot about it. But hey, time will tell.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

I've noticed that a lot of apologists use the "Worldlines" to excuse away the predictions that Titor made which didn't happen (for example, the civil war).
Click to expand...
If you think the worldlines are bad in that respect then you probably haven't heard about the "divergence".


It seems as if the premise is that if you time-travel, you'll probably go to a worldline that's slightly different in some way (usually different enough to explain any holes in predictions, but not so different that Titor claimed all his facts with the highest level of confidence, even the stuff that outright didn't happen). So the questions are.
Click to expand...
You are correct. But Titor didn't make that theory up. It is that way because of its priciples.

1) Why does the variation between worldlines happen? Why does time-travel also consist of going to another dimension? It doesn't make any sense... time-travel would be useless if you couldn't get back to exactly where you came from (which leads me to #2)
Click to expand...
Some background info: The theory is based on what some call the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (or MWI for short). Since we are not interested in the microscopic version I'll skip that. The macroscropic version is easy to follow, although some think the macroscopic theory is nonsense. In the MWI there is a concept called quantum states. In that macroscopic theory they are used to denote decisions. Which actually is not technically correct. Counterfactuals might be a better term. But I try to keep it simple. A worldline can be seen as the history of quantum states. Each state is a simple yes or no, turn left or right, etc.. A worldline can only differ from another when its quantum states are different.

So how does that work? Say you are at a crossing and turn left. In another worldline (which has a history exactly like yours up to that point) the copy of you there decides to turn right. So two alternative histories are created. In jargon they say that the worldline splits.

OK. Now lets try some time travel. If you decide to travel to the past then at your point of arrival the worldline splits. That's because on the one you came from the records don't indicate anyone like you popped up. And in the other one you just arrived.

While there you can even kill the other "you" because the other one is not you, The other person is a copy who lived on that other worldline before you came along. So you wouldn't kill yourself, but you would kill someone that looks like you.

Forget about the bloody killings. Because you travelled to the past the history would be different when you would go "back" to your "home world". And you are stuck with that copy of yourself. And who knows how bad have you screwed up that worldline by just being there. Maybe you caused an accident that didn't happen if you didn't travel to that worldline, and so on. Much like the butterfly effect in the movie.

However, there is a way to bring you close to your "home world". To do that you travel to the past again to the moment just before you arrived originally. Then from that point on you travel forward rightaway. Again the worldline would split, but because you are briefly there chances are that you wouldn't change much in that worldline (so JT tells us). That's called backtracking.

2) If you're going to come out in a different worldline, why send anyone back? If you send Titor back to get a computer, he's probably not going to come back to the same worldline... leaving the worldline that sent Titor to never get the computer they wanted.
Click to expand...
Yes, you wouldn't arrive where you came from. But... in the MWI there are an infinite amount of wordlines. So there are a huge number of copies (each on their own worldline) who would try to do the same. In that case a copy of you might arrive in your home world and you may arrive in one which looks much the same.

In a lot of worldlines (probably the ones similar to your original one) chances are that it won't even be noticed.

3) How different are the worldlines? It seems like a popular excuse is "Well, on THIS worldline, the civil war must be delayed by a couple months." It also seems as if worldlines are just a device to excuse away the incorrect predictions that Titor made. Does it follow the "Universal Plothole Coverup Law" or is there some method to it?
Click to expand...
Imagine that your father met your mother by accident, because he caught her while slipping on a banana peel. Ah... How romantic! If for some reason your mother didn't slip in that other world then there wouldn't be someone that looks like you in that world. Instead your mother may have given birth to the next president of the US or a serial killer. If you went back to such a world then things may be radically different. The more different wordlines are the greater the "divergence".

May the divergence be with you.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

That's an entirely unprovable theory based off of no evidence whatsoever. If they exist, for example, where are they? If the Universe is infinite, it should occupy ALL of space. Where are the room for these new worlds, so to speak?

EDIT: Lemme just get this right.

OK, so, here I am. I could choose to post this... or I could choose to delete it. If I keep it up, die-hard Titor fans will stop believing in it... if I take it down, they'll keep believing... and if either of those result in death, there could be two worldlines, one where someone dies and one where someone does not?
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

That's an entirely unprovable theory based off of no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

If they exist, for example, where are they? If the Universe is infinite, it should occupy ALL of space. Where are the room for these new worlds, so to speak?
Click to expand...
We don't know if the Universe is infinite. The MWI would be happy with a closed universe. The collection of universes (each one responsible for a world) would be called the Multiverse.

OK, so, here I am. I could choose to post this... or I could choose to delete it. If I keep it up, die-hard Titor fans will stop believing in it... if I take it down, they'll keep believing... and if either of those result in death, there could be two worldlines, one where someone dies and one where someone does not?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Think about this: In the Multiverse free will is an illusion. Even Titor wouldn't like that.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Let me put it another way. Newton's theories may seem to work on a daily base. But these are not complete and cannot be properly proven. Even after the special theory of relativity, the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics parts are missing. Loop quantum gravity, string theory and so on may lead to a unified theory of everything. In science there are a lot of camps. Some reject string theory, others embrace loop quantum gravity, etc., but all camps have a hard time proving their side. Does that mean non of those work? Well... We can calculate the motion of planets, what goes up must come down, etc. From all those theories we took the stuff that seems to work. But is that proof?

Some argue that the MWI is nonsense and see it as a misinterpretation of Everett's original work. Others (like Deutsch) think the MWI is actual and quantum computers are evidence that it may be correct. Other's have arguments which claim a quantum computer doesn't need the MWI. Yet others claim that the MWI may be true, but the number of parallel universes is finite. There are even more variations. Who's right and who's wrong? We don't have the answers yet. So how can I come up with proof if people with far more knowledge about these subjects don't have the answers either?

In short: You asked 3 questions. I have answered those. That's all I can do.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Well, Newton's theories can work on a daily base, and they can be proved. It's been proved time and time again... F=ma works. I can prove that to you.

However, multiple universes don't. They can't be proven, and there's really no reason to think they exist at all. Even if they did, it still doesn't explain away how Titor was hugely wrong with his predictions.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Yeah tell Stephen Hawking there is no proof so he will drop this crazy many-worlds crap too.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Speaking purely hypothetically based on the current knowledge of Multiple Worldlines/Timelines. The theory basically says that for every possible Choice there are infinite possible outcomes, meaning there truly are infinite possibilities and outcomes and All of them MUST happen.

1) The variation happens in this theory because there must be one possible universe for every possible outcome. The variation ranges from No big bang at all ever happening to you turning left instead of right at an intersection. That is to say this encompasses the smallest and the largest of all possible outcomes throughout all time. I am not sure why there would be a problem getting back to your own worldline/timeline. However if there were it wouldn't matter because in a billion different realities you got back just fine.

2) Why send anyone back? Because its the Choice that is important. As long as you choose to go back probably a billion trillion other you's in other universes faced with the same choice will also go. And even if you don't end up precisely back at your timeline, no doubt one of you will. No doubt some timelines will end up with multiple you's, and other timelines end up with none of you's. They may not get the computer that the John Titor we all talked to go, but no doubt one way or another they got the computer.

3) Again, restating the whole theory. The Worldlines are infinite meaning that all possible outcomes have happened. In a billion timeslines there is a war, in a billion more there aren't, maybe a few million of them have a Brief war, maybe a few million of them Delay the war by a couple months. Maybe in a few rare cases Aliens blow up the Sun and all human life is wiped out in 8-9 minutes. Maybe in a few rarer cases a Chrononaut from the year 75,039 comes back in time and gives you a ray gun and tells you to blow up the first alien space ship you see and in this timeline Earth survives. And in another timeline you miss the space ship with your ray gun and the aliens vaporize you. And in another timeline, etc etc etc...

Basically for this to really exist it means All outcomes can and do happen so of course anyone can predict the future. Just not neccesarily the future that THEY are headed for.

John Kerry is the next president, and 9/11 happened but we shot them down after the first plane, and JFK was never assasinated. Those have all happened according to the multiple timeline/worldline theory. Also we get blown up by an asteroid in 16 hours and then a huge earthquake breaks off california from the rest of the US and a nuclear war happens in the mideast and we end up finding WMD in Iraq. Because those are possible futures and I can imagine them, they have happened. The point is, only a Chrononaut from our specific timeline (if timelines exist) will know our specific future. Otherwise their General knowledge is almost as useless as Guessing.
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

...is there any proof whatsoever that a universe exists other than this one where I took a right instead of a left?
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

Clearly define your accepted standard of proof first. Then, and only then, might it be possible to answer your question (possibly even in the affirmative).

RMT
 
Re: John Titor\'s \"Worldlines\"

I dont think there is. No proof that you are sitting in a petry dish in a lab and that you didn't take a left or a right. No proof god made the universe. No proof of of how we were created and the true nature of reality. As far as I know.

The many worlds I was talking about isn't really worldlines (Darby explains it better but many-worlds talks about microscopic events and it doesn't translate at all into the macro world - Although I think it does on some level but I dont know anything /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif ). The only advantage I think it has over cophenhagen is that it resolves like every time travel paradox.

With 1 worldline if the universe started (?) all over again, would everything repeat the exact same way with perfect reversability? If it does then man, thats a boring universe.

With many worlds all outcomes are said to happen and what we observe is probability driven.
 
Back
Top